li [Andrew Nowicki] mi tulis la
> Rex May wrote:
>
> >In Tceqli, at least, I discovered that when you shove
> together a modifier-
> >modifed pair to make a compound, the compound is almost
> always a subset of
> >the range of possible meanings of the m-m. "Fayr cari"
> (fire stick) could
> >mean a lot of things -- a match, a torch, kindling wood,
> firewood, poker -
> -
> >but the compound "fayrcari" is defined as "match." Now, if
> dismantling a
> >compound HAD to lead you to an unambiguous definition of the word,
> fayrcari
> >wouldn't do, and it would have to be "fayrzafapicari," or fire-start-
> cause-
> >little-stick, which would be silly, and would in fact be
> almost totally
> >equivalent to a phrase, (pi sa cari hu djin zu zafa fayr -
> little stick
> >that people use to start fires). Again, why bother making a
> compound if
> >the compound defines itself?
> >
> >Now, the problem with foam food is that there isn't _enough_
> mnemonic, or
> >doesn't seem to be. Any language, I'd say, is going to come
> up with some
> >things like that, but it should be the exception, and not the rule.
>
> Are you saying that the compound word match = "fire stick"
> is fundamentally different than the compound word
> bread = "foam food"?
There is a fundamental difference. Fire+stick creates a mental image of
a stick burning so while there may be some abiguity as to whether it is
a torch, a match, etc.; the basic concept still gets through. In
context one may say "do you have a fire stick (match)?" and it would be
completely understood by just about anyone especially if the speaker is
holding a cigarette. "foam food" on the other hand only conjures up
"huh?".